April, May, June 2018

Reports and News  from April May and June 2018

Updated  for publication of web site July 9th

Sequence of major topics


                  The  Darlington battle

US and Canada

Bashash – the American campaign


              Other news

 Australia and New Zealand

             Legal definition of medical treatment

            Video links

           Other international news


A personal note:

Apologies to regular readers. A life-threatening condition that I suffered at the end of April was behind the longest  delay in four years of the  SWIS updates. See also my notes attached to New Zealand research.

Ivor H



 From Northern Echo – Darlington Comments and latest news



  1. Northern Echo reports- Commencing with the latest

July 3

Battle lines have been drawn over the possible introduction of fluoride to the public water supply, with campaigners claiming to do so would violate human rights and “poison” residents.

As Darlington Borough Council’s children and young people’s scrutiny committee voted to recommend the authority launches a technical appraisal to consider a water fluoridation scheme either in Darlington or across the Tees Valley, members were told scientists remained divided on its safety.

Joy Warren, of the UK Freedom from Fluoride Alliance, called on the council to pause its exploration of water fluoridation to thoroughly examine the evidence. She said there were more than 50 reports worldwide showing unborn children’s intelligence was reduced by the presence of fluoride in the womb.

Darlington resident Alan Hall added fluoride’s toxicity rating was between lead and arsenic and therefore was a “poison”.

He said: “Mass medication is a violation of human rights. Why fluoridate an entire population compulsorily when it is possible to reduce dental decay by properly targeted interventions, which work at the individual level, as indeed obesity programmes work?”

The committee was also shown photographs of children with dental fluorosis, and told fluoride did wider damage to the body.

Members said they had seen widespread dental decay in the town and some type of action was needed.

David Lands, a Public Health England consultant, said water containing fluoride had been drunk for 173 years in Hartlepool and for almost 50 years in other parts of the North-East and fluorosis had not been raised as an issue by medics.

He said: “There is very clear evidence of fluoride reducing dental disease and if look at the latest statistics the lowest levels of dental disease in the North-East are in fluoridated areas. Middlesbrough has almost twice the level of dental disease than Hartlepool.”

He added the lowest levels of children with a learning disability or autism spectrum disorder in the North-East were in those districts with fluoride in the water.

The committee’s chairman, Councillor Chris Taylor said from the evidence presented it was clear fluoridation was worth exploring further.


The previous report was clearly on one side: Northern Echo June 13th

INVESTIGATIVE work has been launched to consider whether fluoride should be added to the drinking water of a town with a high proportion of children with tooth decay.

Darlington’s director of public health Miriam Davidson said the town’s council was taking part with neighbouring authorities in a technical appraisal to look at the feasibility of introducing a community fluoridation scheme.

Among the issues being examined is whether water fluoridation can be introduced in one borough without having to introduce it in a neighbouring area.

Darlington Borough Council’s health and wellbeing board heard the authority was also gathering evidence from professionals about fluoridation.

The meeting was told while Hartlepool, which has natural fluoride in its water, had 15 per cent of five-year-olds with decayed, filled or missing teeth, the figure in Darlington was 35 per cent.

Members were told while Stockton’s figure was ten per cent below that of Darlington, part of Stockton is supplied with water by Hartlepool.

Ms Davidson said water fluoridation was both the most effective and cheapest intervention.

She added: “Water fluoridation can reduce the likelihood of experience of decay as a safe public health measure. It is suitable for consideration in localities where dental decay are a cause for concern. It is a valuable public health intervention.

“The inequality with poor oral health is stark. There are some parts of our community where oral health is much poorer.”

Ms Davidson said while some areas of the region had seen improvements in children’s oral health, there had been “no measurable improvement” in the prevalence of tooth decay experience in five-year-old children in Darlington over the past few years.

She said: “This council has not made a commitment to introducing a community water fluoridation scheme, but that responsibility since 2013 has accrued to the local authority.”

The inequality with poor oral health is stark. There are some parts of our community where oral health is much poorer.”

Ms Davidson said while some areas of the region had seen improvements in children’s oral health, there had been “no measurable improvement” in the prevalence of tooth decay experience in five-year-old children in Darlington over the past few years.

She said: “This council has not made a commitment to introducing a community water fluoridation scheme, but that responsibility since 2013 has accrued to the local authority.”



Here is Joy Warren’s judgement of the relevance of the major New Zealand decision, reported below and the UK:

We know that the Supreme Court in NZ has ruled that: “Water fluoridation is compulsory mass medication, in breach of human rights, the Supreme Court has ruled by a majority vote”

The trick will be trying to get stubborn local authorities to acknowledge the fact that if they insist on carrying on with this charade, they will be wasting money and will be violating their constituents’ human rights.  I think, and I may be wrong, but since NZ is a Commonwealth Country, its Courts’ decisions ought to be heeded by UK Government and particularly by PHE which in the North-East is pulling every trick it can to hasten the process.

For example, on Monday, Darlington’s Children and Young People Scrutiny Committee (CYP) will be asked to recommend to Cabinet that Cabinet authorises a preliminary feasibility study (which will be part-funded by the NHS) even though the Joint Scrutiny Review Board for Obesity and Dental Care has NOT reached a final conclusion on recommending WF for Darlington!  This shows undue haste and I think that the haste is because Darlington has to be brought into line with Co. Durham which is one step ahead of Darlington in the WF proposal progress.

Anyway, the three of us (Mike Watson, Alan Hall and I) will be asking pertinent questions of the CYP on Monday.  In view of the news from New Zealand, I am formulating a question which relates to the NZ judgement.  My thoughts so far are:

“In 1982, a Scottish High Court Judge (Judge Lord Jauncy) ruled that fluoridated water was a medicine.  HM Government ignored this ruling but instead rushed in a law with legalised WF.  Last week, in a highly developed commonwealth country 24 hours away, The Supreme Court of New Zealand ruled that :

Water fluoridation is compulsory mass medication, in breach of human rights, the Supreme Court has ruled by a majority vote. It confirmed that fluoridation is a medical treatment as claimed by opponents for over 60 years. It is not a supplement “just topping up natural levels”, as claimed by the Ministry of Health.

The impracticality of avoiding fluoridated water makes it compulsory in practice, the majority also ruled.

Three judges held that there was conflicting scientific evidence, confirming that the science is NOT settled.

This leaves Darlington Borough Council with a problem:  do you continue to explore water fluoridation by agreeing with the recommendation in paragraph 6 of the Summary Report at Agenda Item 8 or do you pause the process while you investigate the issue more thoroughly than has been the case up until now?

After all, the Joint Review Scrutiny Board has only been deliberating the issue for 2 months and will not have learned about last week’s very important Supreme Court ruling.  It is also debatable whether the Review Board will have had the “reduction in intelligence” research reports and conclusions placed in front of them.  There are over 50 such reports which show that the human fetus’s intelligence becomes reduced in a dose-response manner in the presence of fluoride in the womb.  The two most recent studies by Bashash et al and Thomas et al published in late 2017 and in 2018 are particularly strong research and show that at the concentration of fluoride added to English drinking water, we can expect a significant drop in a child’s intelligence of 5 points.

Are Councillors serving on this CYP Committee prepared to take the responsibility for approving a practice which will significantly reduce the intelligence of their constituents’ children yet unborn?

Are Councillors serving on this CYP Committee prepared to approve the practice of Water Fluoridation in the full knowledge that they would be denyiing the human rights of their constituents?

Furthermore, are Councillors aware that the evidence that purports to show that swallowing fluoride reduces dental health inequalities across social groups is insufficient and unreliable, to quote the UK York Review and the UK Cochrane Collaboration Review of 2000 and 2015 respectively ”

and I quote

“We found insufficient information to determine whether fluoridation reduces differences in tooth decay levels between children from poorer and more affluent backgrounds.”


“The evidence about reducing inequalities in dental health was of poor quality, contradictory and unreliable.”

It’s quite a long question but I hope that it shoots them between the eyes!


A wider issue noticed by Ann Willis, the following extract of  from the Daily Mail June 3rd

 “END OF THE FILLING?  EXPERTS FIND WAY TO GROW TOOTH ENAMEL” Researchers at Queen Mary University of London have developed a material which once applied to teeth, allows enamel to regrow…. Lead author Prof Alvaro Mata said “We have developed a very thin tissue which mineralises & integrates with the rest of the tooth”  They hope to carry out clinical trials on people within 2 or 3 years.  Published in “Nature Communications.”


2 The FAN campaign on the dangers to children and their mothers

 2.1 Dentistry IQ  quotes FAN

May 10th

The Fluoride Action Network (FAN) launched its “Moms2B Avoid Fluoride” campaign to alert pregnant women that consuming fluoride, especially from fluoridated water, can potentially harm the developing brain of their unborn child, according to newly published research.

FAN pointed to to two “mother-child” studies in 2017 and 2018 on the cognitive effect of fluoride on the human fetus. Both studies reported a significant decrease in the IQs of children whose mothers had higher fluoride intakes. The studies reportedly found an average IQ loss of 6 points at age 4 years, along with losses at ages 1-3 and 6-12 (Bashash et al 2017, Thomas et al 2018). The studies were U.S. government funded.

According to Paul Connett, PhD, director of FAN, “Pregnant women need to be warned about this emerging risk from a needlessly imposed exposure to fluoride.”

The American Dental Association, a long-term advocate of community water fluoridation, remains dedicated to what dentistry feels is a needed heatlh benefit.

FAN’s campaign urges consumers to:

  • If you are pregnant, avoid fluoride, especially from fluoridated water.
  • Start a group to share this information with pregnant women in your community
  • Start a group opposed to fluoridation in your community
  • Contact local and state officials and water suppliers. Tell them to stop fluoridation or reject its initiation.
  • Share this information.


FAN May 9th

An additional extract from the news provided by FAN

These findings strengthen the evidence from over 50 previous studies in humans and over 300 in animals that found links between fluoride exposure and lowered IQ, brain damage, and learning and memory deficits. The new studies have clearly demonstrated, for the first time, that pregnancy is the most critical period for exposure to fluoride. The fetus now ranks as the most vulnerable of our species to fluoride’s toxicity…. tooth decay.


Some comment from Declan Waugh on treating Bashash,

Something everyone should be aware about the Bashash study. When you measure urinary F in pregnant women it is important to be aware that during pregnancy the kidney undergoes anatomical changes and the globular filtration rate (GFR) increases over the term of pregnancy. GFR increases 50% compared with pre-pregnancy levels and peak at term in uncomplicated pregnancies. Thus, UF are not reflective of non pregnant women and will overestimate F exposure.

This comment from a strong  well known researcher on our side had caused some comment by  supporters. It does not seem to have been emphasised by those attacking  or ignoring Basshash, and it is not clear if this suggests any adjustment of the fluoride figure in tables of its effect as shown by FAN. Even if that were so, the effect of  IQ drop caused by fluoride  would still be clear.

Paul Connett wrote: to us all: How are the  fluoride promotors in your country  handling – or not handling – the Bashas study?

May 29 At the risk of repeating myself – this Bashash et al 2017 study is absolutely CRITICAL to our efforts – and it is not surprising that the major media in our respective countries and fluoridation promoters are doing their best to ignore it.

It was done by researchers who know what they were doing – they have published over 50 neurotox studies among them.

These researchers come from several top universities and research institutions including U. of Toronto, McGill, Indiana, Michigan, Harvard, Mexico and Mount Sinai.

The study was financed by three agencies of the US government – the NIH, the EPA and the NIEHS.

It was a 12-year study.

It was a multi-million dollar study.

It was part of a longer (25 year)  research study called the ELEMENT study.

It was very rigorous controlling for many confounding variables.

It found a strong correlation between total fluoride exposure to women during pregnancy and lowered IQ in their offspring at aged 4 and again at age 6-12 – and in a later study (Thomas et al., 2018) for which we only have the abstract – children aged 1 -3.

It is the first study to point to “in utero” exposure as the key period for lowering IQ by fluoride. The fetus is the most vulnerable of our species.

Think of it this way – the proponents focus on concentration (mg/L) as the focus of concern – we say NO – it is the DOSE in mg/day which is the key – and TOTAL dose at that.

Then we add and the same dose will be worse for an infant (or baby) than for a child and the same dose for a child worse for an adult.  To underline those concerns we introduce a new measure called DOSAGE – this is mg/kg bodyweight /day. Obviously the smaller the bodyweight the worse any dose of fluoride will be. OK so far? Then think of the bodyweight of the fetus! Then think of the bodyweight of the fetus in the first trimester!

Coming at this from a different angle – I have always stressed that mother’s milk protects the newborn baby (and water fluoridation removes that protection) from fluoride. Now we are moving into an area where the body does not protect the baby – fluoride can pass through the membrane between the mother and the fetus. The fetus is bathed in the fluoride taken in the mothers diet! Oh boy. That is why we have started our warning to pregnant moms.

See our web page www.fluoridealert.org  – for Bashash, Thomas, the 52 IQ studies, the Moms2B campaign.

I would appreciate your best efforts to get information on the questions I posed in the previous message (thanks Sonia and Mary) ..

Paul has asked supporters everywhere:

1How the promoters in your country are handling (or not handling) the Bashash et al 2017, study?

2) Has any major newspaper in your country covered this issue?

3) What are the latest government statements on fluoride’s neurotoxity from your countries.

4) Has anyone made any attempts to get the message out to pregnant women?

The response here and elsewhere is the appalling lack of take up in the media and in the UK it should be one of our three-pringed campaign issues. https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=10&v=cfTSc5T7CNY

Finally  another example from the US of misinformation,  ignorance or deliberate denying vital facts. This Challenge to the New York Times refers  to an earlier journalistic error as well as Bashash.

2.3 From FAN

Under any other circumstances this would be a very embarrassing mistake but on the matter of fluoridation the NYT is not embarrassed easily.  For example, in 2015 the senior science editor wrote an email in connection with fluoridation:

“…I unstand that you disagree, but I think it’s fair to say
that most members of the science staff of The New York Times
consider this debate to have been decided – in fluoride’s favor –
about 50 years ago.”Donald McNeil Jr., Science Correspondent, New York Times
April 2, 2015 email. Subject: READERS MAIL
See copy of email at 4:35 minutes into Our Daily DoseIt is quite possible that Donald McNeil’s pro-fluoridation position here has something to do with the fact that his father wrote a history of water fluoridation that was decidedly pro-fluoridation (The Fight for Fluoridation, Donald McNeil, Oxford University Press, 1957). Be that as it may, McNeil should know that such a statement is preposterous. Science is never “settled.” This situation is what Thomas Huxley described as the “great tragedy of science – the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact.”In the case of water fluoridation there are dozens of ugly facts that slay the hypothesis and the much repeated mantra that “fluoridation is safe and effective.”  These include 53 studies that associate a lowering of IQ with exposure to fluoride (http://fluoridealert.org/studies/brain01/).  From the fluoridation promoters’ perspective, the “ugliest” of these “facts” came last year in the form of a rigorous US government-funded study that found an association between fluoride exposure in pregnant women and lowered IQ in their children at 4 and 6-12 years of age (Bashash et al., 2017).New York Times continues to ignore recent IQ studiesThe worrying thing here is not so much this recent “clanger” from the NYT but rather the fact that the editors of this paper made a decision that these important findings from 2017 (and repeated in 2018 by Thomas et al.) were not “fit to be published.”This, despite the fact that this multi-million-dollar research effort was carried out over 12 years, and involved researchers from many leading US, Canadian and Mexican institutions and Universities, with over 50 published papers on other neurotoxic chemicals between them, and that it was published in the world’s leading environmental health journal (Environmental Health Perspectives).Failure of the New York Times means that pregnant women are not being warned to avoid fluorideFAN is doing its best to warn people about these important findings but sadly, without the attention of important outlets like the NYT, pregnant women in the US and other fluoridated countries will not be adequately warned that they should avoid fluoride during pregnancy.FAN writes letter on June 3rd to the New York Times requesting correction

Letter to the Editor:

A recent NY Times article (5/28/2018) linked to an outdated video, which made a serious mistake about fluoride science, should be corrected.

The speaker in the video claims a Harvard University meta-analysis of 27 fluoride/IQ studies reported an average difference of 0.45 IQ points.  In reality, the Harvard researchers reported a loss of 0.45 of one standard deviation, which amounts to a loss of 7 IQ points. A huge difference.

A loss of 7 IQ points would more than halve the number of very bright children (IQ greater than 130) and increase by at least 50% the number of mentally handicapped (IQ less than 70).

We are also disappointed that the Times failed to report recent findings of a rigorous US-government funded study conducted by a team of highly experienced researchers (Bashash, 2017 and Thomas, 2018) that essentially confirmed the Harvard review’s concerns. In this latest study, a loss of 6 IQ points in children was associated with exposure to women during pregnancy of levels of fluoride commonly experienced by adults in artificially fluoridated communities.

Without the attention to such important science, by such news outlets as the NY Times, pregnant women in the USA will not be adequately warned that they should avoid fluoride during pregnancy.

Paul Connett, PhD

FAN has also written a letter to the video host

Dear Dr. Carroll,

In 2014, you made a YouTube video entitled “Fluoride in the Water Isn’t Going to Hurt You.”

In the video, you stated that a Harvard meta-analysis found that higher fluoride levels in 27 studies, on average, lowered the IQ’s of children by about one half an IQ point. Actually, the study said that it was about half a standard deviation, equating to about seven IQ points (https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/features/fluoride-childrens-health-grandjean-choi/).  This was a major error, leading to anyone watching your video to underestimate how serious fluoride in water can be. Since that study, many others have found that fluoride may lower IQ’s, including last year’s major NIH-funded study led by the University of Toronto (https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/ehp655/) (and including at least one researcher from your own Indiana University) that linked higher fluoride levels in pregnant women to lower IQ’s in their children.

Recently, the New York Times ran an article linking to your video, further compounding this misunderstanding.

I have a simple request. Would you please, in the very near future, either correct your YouTube video or, if that’s not possible, remove it entirely from the internet as soon as possible? Please let me know.

Meanwhile, would you also inform the NY Times – who relied on your video – of this error.

Thank you,

Paul Connett, PhD

Executive Director, Fluoride Action Network

We have received no reply and no correction from either the New York Times or Carroll. Thus, the lie (fluoridation is safe) persists and other than FAN no one is warning pregnant women to avoid fluoride.

Sincerely, Paul Connett, PhDExecutive Director
Fluoride Action Network

..and a press release from the active New York State Coalition Oppose to Fluoridation  (NYSCOF)

US New York NYSCOF Press release:

23rd May

NEW YORK, May 23, 2018 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — “[F]luoride exposures in early life could influence or originate the root-cause of certain diseases in later life,” write researchers in The Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry (5/2018), reports the New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation, Inc. (NYSCOF)

…Fluoride is a developmental neurotoxicant linked to lower IQ, they explain.

Attorney Paul Beeber, NYSCOF President says, “As a precaution, it’s important for pregnant women to be told they should limit their fluoride intake.”

Contact: Paul Beeber, JD, nyscof@aol.com 516-433-8882

SOURCE NYS Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation. Follow this link for full repo


2. 3 From Siver Telegraph 12th May

 Researchers are encouraged not to abuse the fluorinated mineral water, as it leads to a rapid jump of hormones and disruption of the thyroid gland. Pregnant women are not allowed to drink this water. …

Researchers are encouraged not to abuse the fluorinated mineral water, as it leads to a rapid jump of hormones and disruption of the thyroid gland. Pregnant women are not allowed to drink this water.



3 The Calgary Criminal Campaigners

and some more elsewhere in Canada


The section below updates the issue readable a few fays ago, including a some some personal reactions.

The latest self-justification from the Herald:;

  Calgary Herald

June 26

How do you feel about the cost of living in Calgary? (Poll Closed)

It is too high  59.68%  (561 votes)

I think it is reasonable  16.6%  (156 votes)

It’s been getting better  5.43%  (51 votes)

It’s been getting worse  18.29%  (172 votes)

Total Votes: 940

Comments (0)Create Your Own Poll

Yesterday, we asked if you think Calgary’s drinking water should be fluoridated, and it proved to be divisive. Thousands of readers voted, with about 54 per cent coming out in favour of adding fluoride. Here are the results:

Do you think Calgary’s drinking water should be fluoridated? (Poll Closed)

Yes  54.13%  (2,432 votes)

No  43.87%  (1,971 votes)

I need more information before making a decision  1.8%  (81 votes)

It doesn’t matter to me  0.2%  (9 votes)

Total Votes: 4,493

Comments (27)Create Your Own Poll

We received hundreds of comments on Twitter, Facebook and in the comments section. Here is a small sampling from both sides of the debate:

Anthony: It’s poor kids in poor areas who are suffering most. I teach in the North East, and there are kids in agony because their teeth are rotting. This isn’t the 19th century. Get it sorted!

Donna: This absurd practice of adding HFSA is based more on politics than science. Why should a water department be given the power to medicate anyone when they don’t take a health history, they don’t pass out a listing of side effects or monitor the dose.

Jen:  I had a lengthy conversation with my dentist over Calgary’s lack of fluoride. The numbers are astounding for how much decay is present in kids today. It’s not from a lack of brushing and flossing…or too much candy.

Rob: It’s another diet-cola quick-fix solution to sugary, refined-starch Western diet. I don’t buy the “dentists are the experts” line – it depends on the dentist, whether they bother to read research, etc. It wasn’t that long ago that they were sticking mercury in our mouths – so gimme a break! And recent research doesn’t support the effectiveness of flossing (in preventing tooth decay). So if YOU want to drink fluoride, go right ahead. Keep it out of MY drinking water.

Anita: No, however I feel there should be free dentistry in all schools.

Brian: Why not add the fluoridation question to the Olympic vote in the fall? After several years without fluoridation, parents with young children may voice a different opinion than they did in 2011.


Here is the worst example of printed propaganda

Calgary Herald

June 22nd

By June Dabbagh, Leagh Harfield, Wendy Street-Wadey and Juliet Guichon

As the school year draws to an end, it is time to consider how Calgary has been treating its children lately. In one respect, the answer is not well at all.

Calgary city council decided in 2011 to cease adjusting the fluoride levels in Calgary water. Three of us are dental specialists, and can attest to the devastating consequences.

Consider, for example, Sammy’s case. On a Saturday, his mother called a dental office reporting that the eight-year-old boy was irritable, feverish and crying constantly. The mother wanted an appointment for Monday morning, but we opened the office to see him. He was not well. An infection in his tooth had crept upward to his eye, such that his lower eyelid was closing.

This is a medical emergency. Once in the eye, a dental infection can travel rapidly to the brain and, if untreated, cause death. One of us went with his mother to Rockyview Hospital. Sammy was immediately given intravenous antibiotics and admitted. The next day, he was transferred to the Children’s Hospital for continued care.

Such systemic infections caused by dental infections are not unusual these days. In fact, we have had to change how we practice dentistry. When we had fluoridation, we would watch a small soft spot or cavity; we would wait to see whether it grew before drilling and filling. Now, we must pounce on the problem because, in the six months until the next appointment, that small, soft spot will likely become a huge hole in the tooth.

Consider another scenario. We now routinely see children whose primary and permanent molars are already decayed and require fillings as soon as the teeth erupt through the gums. When the dental decay is too severe, the infected teeth must be extracted. In very young children, such work must often be done under general anesthetic, which bears its own risks for kids and can be a horrible experience for the children and their parents.

Consequently, the child might need orthodontic care over a seven- to nine-year period to recreate a bite and to maximize the effectiveness of the remaining teeth. Prior to fluoridation cessation, we saw children in this state almost always from communities surrounding Calgary that did not have water fluoridation. Sadly, now Calgary children are losing teeth they will need throughout their adult lives.

Calgary children are not the only ones suffering. Adults need fluoridation too, especially seniors.

Fluoride is a mineral and occurs naturally in Calgary drinking water at 0.1 to 0.4 parts per million. It strengthens tooth structure, prevents decay and even reverses some decay. To be therapeutic, the fluoride level needs to be at 0.7 parts per million. At this level, fluoride remains safe and effective.

This fact is settled science, confirmed most recently in massive systematic reviews by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council and the Irish Government Food Safety Authority. Indeed, 5,600 studies support adding fluoride to the 0.7 level.

Experts at the Public Health Agency of Canada, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and the World Health Organization recommend fluoridation; so do hundreds of leading global health and dental organizations, thereby attesting to its safety and efficacy.

Almost all U.S. cities fluoridate their water, as do major international cities. Incidentally, almost 90 per cent of NHL cities fluoridate their water.

It is time to recognize what we see every single day. Allowing the levels of fluoride in our drinking water to fall below 0.7 parts per million is a terrible mistake that hurts people: you, your children and your grandchildren, every day.

When children’s teeth are rotting, they can’t eat, sleep or develop normally. They have trouble concentrating in school and don’t want to play. Summer will not be much fun for kids with dental pain.

City councillors, please make reinstating water fluoridation a priority.

June Dabbagh and Wendy Street-Wadey are Calgary dentists. Leagh Harfield is a Calgary orthodontist. Juliet Guichon is a University of Calgary bioethicist.



News from elsewhere in Canada

Owen Sound Ontario

 20th May

A request to have a question regarding fluoride in Owen Sound’s drinking water on the municipal election ballot has been denied.

…In the news release issued on Friday it stated that a petition had been submitted to clerk Briana Bloomfield prior to the May 1 deadline. In accordance with the Fluoridation Act, the petition must be signed by at least 10 per cent of electors in the municipality and certified as sufficient by the clerk.…The original petition had over 2,200 signatures,

Barker said she trusts Bloomfield, but feels there must be a problem somewhere. The city Owen Sound began adding fluoride to its water supply in 1965.Since a majority of city electors — 59.94 per cent — voted in favour of the city continuing the practice in a 1997 referendum, Ontario law says another plebiscite that produces the opposite result is required before it can end.

Water fluoridation is a contentious issue. Opponents of community water fluoridation, meanwhile, say it is an outdated, ineffective practice that is not safe, poses a threat to human health and should not be forced on people..Barker isn’t sure what their next step but she feels her group has to do something…



  • Windsor, Essex,24th June

The names of both locations are now copied to Ontario! Three letters published by the Star meeting their requirement for under 300 words, form a good collective case

There have been a great number of studies done on the effects of fluoridation of drinking water, Many are conducted by labs paid for by fluoride lobbyists and dental lobbyists. These are less than impartial studies.

A 2007 review by the British Medical Journal stated that “there have been no randomized trials of water fluoridation,” which is currently standard for all drugs. This alone should stop any further use of this policy of a blanket drug program until further independent and randomized studies are complete.

The effects on teeth can be proven minimally beneficial. On the other side of the coin fluoride as a neurotoxin has also been proven to affect the brain to a degree.

We as a society can continue to brush our teeth and stay more vigilant in our fight to keep our teeth clean. But a damaged brain is a damaged brain, something this writer is not willing to chance. So, until fluoride has been vigorously and thoroughly tested as per any other drug, please keep it out of my water. I like my water clear, clean, cool, and chemical free.

Darrel Lauzon, Amherstburg



June 13th

Re: Health unit wants return of fluoridation, by Doug Schmidt, June 7.The state of dental health in Essex county’s children may be a justified concern but fluoridation of drinking water as suggested by Dr. Wajid Ahmed is not the answer. Topical use of fluoride in toothpaste may be helpful, but forced ingestion for the entire population has been declared obsolete and detrimental by just about every advanced western nation with the exception of some U.S. states. Cincinnati has fluoridated drinking water for 30 years, yet their dental director described many children’s dental health as “absolutely heartbreaking and a travesty”.

Dr. Ahmed claims that “No widely respected medical and health organization opposes fluoridation.” This is simply not true.

Just some examples: A multimillion-dollar study published last year found that fluoride exposure of pregnant women resulted in impaired fetal brain development and an IQ reduction in early childhood. Ingested fluoride has also been proven to affect thyroid function. Even the notoriously lenient U.S. Federal Drug Administration has classified fluoride supplementation as an unapproved drug that has neither been proven safe nor effective in the prevention of caries.

Household filters cannot eliminate fluoride from drinking water. So like it or not you would be ingesting it. By the way, sodium fluoride is also an effective roach poison.

Eckart Scheuing, Kingsville


No other mass medication is forced on people. Putting it in tap water is an imprecise way of distributing fluoride. How much fluoride a person gets depends on body weight and water consumed. With fluoride now so widely available in toothpaste and mouthwash, there is no need to add it to water. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Environment Canada both state that chemicals used in artificial fluoridation are hazardous waste which may not be put directly into lakes, rivers or oceans.

More than 50 U.S. and 60 Canadian cities in the Great Lakes basin have voted to stop adding fluoride. There are 14 states that are at least 90 per cent fluoride free and several major cities are also now fluoride free.

The two best ways to promote dental health are to clean teeth on a daily basis and avoid foods with acid and sugar. Most drinking water hardly touches the teeth and most gets swallowed. Ingesting does nothing for your teeth but potentially causes issues with other organs in the body.

People that do not want fluoride in the water for consumption are forced to buy water and that increases the plastics in our community. Let’s do the right thing and keep our water free of fluoride.

Richard St. Denis,  Windsor

 US News

Houston April 25th

On April 14 and 15, Dr. Paul Connett held two informational meetings for the citizens of Houston prior to a public meeting held by the City of Houston to allow public comments on the future of fluoridation in Houston’s municipal water supply. The sessions were held at the University of Missouri Extension office in downtown Houston.

Connett is a nationally recognized expert on the issue of water fluoridation, and the head of the Fluoride Action Network. He has spoken in more than 2,000 presentations in 49 states and 52 countries on the issues of fluoridation and waste management. Prof. Connett holds a B.A. (Honours) in Natural Sciences from Cambridge University, England and a Ph.D. in Chemistry from Dartmouth College.

On April 14, the one-hour meeting ran over two hours as Dr. Connett explained the latest science on fluoride’s adverse health effects, including major concerns about its effects on the brain. There are 59 out of 59 studies that have found an association between fluoride and lowered IQ in children. That includes a very rigorous US Government funded study published last year that found a robust relationship between fluoride exposure to pregnant women and the IQ of their children at the ages of 4 and 6-12 years of age. The study measured fluoride levels in the urine, a measure of TOTAL fluoride exposure from all sources, consistent with the range of adult fluoride exposure in fluoridated areas. The study predicted up to a six IQ point drop. Note that fluoride is NOT naturally present in our body.

Other points made by Connett included the fact that once fluoride is added to the water, you can’t control the dose or who it goes to. Forcing people to swallow fluoride does not make sense. Even the CDC admits that the actions of fluoride in preventing tooth decay are primarily topical.

On April 15, the Extension Office was open for a public debate on fluoride. Although invited, both publicly and privately, none of the fluoride proponents attended, so Dr. Connett continued with his presentation regarding the effects of fluoride on the body, including bone, thyroid and the kidneys. Connett discussed alternatives to fluoridation, including more tooth brushing, more fruits and vegetables and LESS SUGAR.

Before leaving Missouri, Dr. Connett attended and spoke at both the public hearing and City Council meetings in Houston April 16. The jury is still out on whether the Houston City Council members will vote to remove fluoride from the water, but at Dr. Connett’s next stop the following day in Walden, NY, following the Public Hearing on fluoride, the Walden Mayor called for an immediate vote with the council, which voted unanimously to end fluoridation. It can be done.


.Houston, Missouri, 23rd May

includes 30 secs audio 

HOUSTON, Mo. — Voters in the city of Houston will decide in November if they want to continue having fluoridated water in the city.

Houston City Administrator Tona Bowen told Ozark Radio News that the Houston City Council approved putting the issue to voters at their meeting on May 21:



Newport NY,

31st May

Fluoridation: Call for a Moratorium

To the Editor:

In the decades since the Newport City Council first authorized fluoridation, …I continue to call for a moratorium. … Sadly, even though the city council has been presented with a mountain of evidence counter to official proclamations of safety and been contacted by a local dentist echoing her own professional concern, the mayor and the council have refused to apply the precautionary principle and halt the practice to allow for an independent, open investigation and public debate.

Full letter, quoting Chris Bryson and other sources, readable: from Kyle F. Hence Newport:



Ogdensberg, Watertown, New York

June 23rd

This report is about purely about costs— City officials are considering changes to how the municipality fluoridates its drinking water to see if there are ways to save money and improve safety conditions….The Development Authority of the North Country has completed a report that compares several options for fluoridating water in Ogdensburg. …. an antiquated system to fluoridate tap water… using a liquid known as fluorosilicic acid….delivered in 55 gallon drums.



 Potsdam, Watertown, New York,

3rd June

Another report on costs in a village that does have some opponents

POTSDAM — The village was flagged with two water quality violations in 2017.…The Village Board has still not made a decision on whether to continue to fluoridate drinking water. “It’s a vocal minority of the village population who are against fluoride,” said Mr. Tischler.  The debate is becoming more relevant as the fluoridation equipment is aging. Mr. Thompson said he should know the cost of replacing equipment in about a month….



May 21,

Another excellent contribution to  by Rutland Herald| Jack Crowther

Fluoridation on trial Largely unseen, a lawsuit that aims to outlaw public water fluoridation is moving forward in the federal District Court of Northern California. In earthquake-prone California, this suit could eventually shake a pillar of U.S. public health policy.

Hundreds of studies showing fluoride’s detrimental effects on the human brain constitute the heart of the lawsuit. They are like the tremors that foreshadow a future quake, signs that a bigger shift is coming. Amid these clear warning signs of a flawed policy with large impacts, the news media are largely silent. Meanwhile, virtually every American ingests fluoride via the water supply or foods prepared with fluoridated water.

What constitutes the “critical mass” for a news story worthy of national attention? Presumably it is the heft of newsworthiness weighed on the scale of editorial judgment. Why, then, does the amply documented evidence of public water fluoridation’s adverse effects come up light on the editorial scale? What prevents it from being the ongoing story of lackadaisical science and violation of the public trust that it has been for nearly 70 years?

The suit against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency seeks to establish that the fluoridation of public water supplies poses an unacceptable risk. Within the politically sheltered walls of the courtroom, the plaintiffs will make their case. They include the Fluoride Action Network, Food and Water Watch, the Organic Consumers Association, the American Academy of Environmental Medicine, the International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology and other groups, plus individuals who have been harmed by fluoride.

Already, plaintiffs have breached the stone wall of government resistance to anything new on the supposedly “settled science” of fluoridation. On Feb. 7, District Court Judge Edward Chen ruled that “discovery” could proceed in the case, despite government objections. This means that FAN and its allies can broaden the evidentiary scope of the trial beyond the already voluminous quantity of documents submitted.

All well and good, from the plaintiffs’ perspective. But what about the major news media? They have almost totally ignored the story, which means, in a certain sense, that nothing is happening. To judge by the major media, no one of standing is concerned about the safety and effectiveness of fluoridation.

Literally hundreds of peer-reviewed scientific studies have raised red flags on fluoride safety. In the past year, for example, the rigorously controlled University of Toronto study, funded by the National Institutes of Health, undeniably linked pregnant women’s fluoride intake to lower IQ in their offspring. Yet these studies remain all but invisible to the public because the popular press avoids them.

In 1999, the Centers for Disease Control cited fluoridation as one of the top 10 public health achievements of the 20th century. But while the other nine have been adopted by virtually all nations, fluoridation continues to be widely rejected. More than 95 percent of the world drinks unfluoridated water, including 98 percent of all Europeans.

The CDC pronouncement was made years before hundreds of studies on fluoride’s neurotoxicity became available. Yet it stands like a granite monument, impervious to the challenges of science, the ethical standard of informed consent, and common-sense precaution.

Eventually, we will carve an epitaph on that monument, a joyless acknowledgement of a mistake too long in the fixing. Like leaded gasoline, DDT, asbestos, PCBs, and other false blessings, fluoridation will take its place among industry’s bad actors. At best, it will serve as a cautionary tale for future generations seeking to harness public policy to the public good.

The fluoridation story meets any reasonable test of newsworthiness. The public is waiting for coverage.

Jack Crowther  Rutland





From FAN

June 26

Members of the Texas Republican … adopted a new platform “principle” on fluoridation:245. Fluoride in Water Supply: The Republican Party of Texas supports banning the fluoridation of the Texas water supply.

…From Ralph Nader, the Green Party’s presidential candidate in 2000, to Libertarians like Dr. Ron Paul, to Democrats and Republicans at every level of government, and everything in between in countries with multi-party systems.  Opposition to fluoridation is clearly an issue we can all proudly find agreement on.




Oberan, New South Wales

May 5th

A piece written by, or clearly supporting, a new group

THE committee opposing fluoridation of Oberon’s water supply will meet with community members every Tuesday afternoon at the Oberon RSL Club from now until the issues goes back to an Oberon Council meeting.…”The committee have a petition circulating around town which is being well supported – but this will only count as one submission to council.


‘ End the fluoride madness’. Janet Poole listing a series of good points

Our retired local vet, Dr Brian Dellow, should know that animals have suffered terribly from fluoride poisoning, including zoo elephants, thoroughbred horses in overseas studies, koalas, possums, kangaroos – thoroughly researched with Australian government grants and international collaborators

Her letter includes refeernce to Geoff Payne, who has been working recently with a leading UK campaigner

One is the latest updates in the long-term Iowa Study, confirming the earlier finding that fluoridation has no impact on tooth decay. https://bit.ly/2stqSfX The other confirms direct damage to the kidneys from fluoride in drinking water – a study by nine respected scientists in Mexico. https://bit.ly/2JhSDTj

I’ve been working with Geoff Pain, a scientist who has a PhD in Organometallic Chemistry, who has studied the toxic effects of fluoride on the human body for 53 years.  Geoff highlighted the following two important peer-reviewed papers published this year in May that you’ll likely not hear about from the pro-fluoride dentists

Follow the two links in bold abpove. For the full list see  https://www.oberonreview.com.au/story/5447045/letter-end-the-madness-of-the-industrial-waste/

New South Wales

June 13

The NSW Health Minister, Brad Hazzard, has rejected calls to force towns like Oberon and Byron Bay to fluoridate drinking water, saying consultation was more effective than forcing compliance with a “baseball bat”.

Mr Hazzard said local and state governments had a “duty of care to try to win the debate,” and convince councils to add fluoride into the water.

The NSW health department is expected to send Oberon residents an information package this week on the benefits of fluoridation before council votes in July on whether to change its anti-fluoridation position.

But experts like Dr Wendell Evans, the co-chair of the Alliance for a Cavity Free Future, say local government does not have the moral or legal right to deny children and adults access to a proven and cost-effective health benefit.

Dr Evans, the former head of Community Oral Health at Sydney University, conducted much of the research into the impact of fluoridation in NSW.



Liverpool Plains

June 15th

Liverpool Plains Shire Council (LPSC) will consider fluoridation of the local water supply. Council has resolved to begin an investigation process, which will involve extensive community consultation.

It comes after NSW Health contacted …, including the provision of design consultants for fluoride systems and a 100 per cent capital cost subsidy.  …In a presentation to Council, NSW Health said that in 2016-17, Quirindi residents visited Gunnedah and Tamworth public dental clinics ….



Quinrindi, NSW, June 20th,

2 min video


June 29, 2018 From FAN and FAN- New Zealand

New Zealand

June 29,

Section 1 is message received from Fluoride Free New Zealand.  Please think about the words highlighted in green.

2 shows Paul Connett agrees in the second section. Joy Warren has made a similar statement in her words about Darlington. Below is a  contribution about this principle. How can we make U.K. law follow it?

3 is the FFNZ Press release, putting their view publicly

Extract and link 4  is to those seeing the decision to fluoridate Taraniki as their victory

Finally, 5  is the  link to the full argument presented by Paul Connett

Some of our readers were puzzled yesterday by FAN NZ broadcasting the Supreme Court verdict on fluoridation as a victory rather than a defeat. After all the Supreme court ruled against the plaintiffs (New Health New Zealand) in their efforts to prevent South Taranaki from fluoridating its water.

Let me explain, in my view, this is a classic case of losing a battle but winning the war.

In this case, the war is over the ethics of fluoridation. For opponents of fluoridation, this practice violates the individual’s right to medical or human treatment. For proponents the counter-argument has been that fluoride is not a medicine and fluoridation is not a medical treatment. Proponents further argue that even if fluoride was a medicine people are not forced to drink the fluoridated water.

In the following two paragraphs (99 and 100) in the Supreme court ruling it is clear that the judges side with opponents on this matter and this finding will have huge ramifications worldwide. In other words it is a huge victory for us. Meanwhile, proponents will celebrate their local victory.


Applying this approach, we find that fluoridation of drinking water is the provision of medical treatment. It involves the provision of a pharmacologically active substance for the purpose of treating those who ingest it for dental decay. We agree with the Courts below that people who live or work in areas where fluoridation occurs have no practical option but to ingest the fluoride added to the water.

So the treatment is compulsory. While drinking water from a tap is not an activity that would normally be classified as undergoing medical treatment, we do not consider that ingesting fluoride added to water can be said to be qualitatively different from ingesting a fluoride tablet provided by a health practitioner.


We conclude that fluoridation of drinking water requires those drinking the water to undergo medical treatment in circumstances where they are unable to refuse to do so. Subject to s5, therefore, s11 of the Bill of Rights Act is engaged.

To see how that local victory was won you will have to read the paragraphs 101 – 144 in the ruling. But basically, they argue that the individual right to informed consent to medication (section 11 of the NZ Bill or Rights) may in certain circumstances be over-ridden by the interests of the larger community (see section 5). However, the judges somewhat undermined these arguments by earlier acknowledging in paragraph 10 that the benefits of fluoridation are largely topical, and as such allowing individuals the right to informed consent in this case would not deprive the rest of society of fluoride’s perceived benefits since there is universal access to fluoridated toothpaste.

Another important point is that when the issue was being heard the US-government funded study by Bashash et al., 2017 had not been published. Had the judges known about this important and rigorous study, it is questionable whether they would they have felt it was in the interests of the larger community to support a practice which would lower the IQ of its children?

Meanwhile, below are more details and arguments from FAN –NZ.

From Paul Connett, PhD
Executive Director Fluoride Action Network:

Most of you will have heard that the Supreme Court made a Ruling on the Appeal by New Health New Zealand. This Appeal resulted in two judgments. The second one (NSC60) held that whether or not fluoridation chemicals should come under the regulations of the Medicines Act was moot, as Medsafe had been given an exemption for fluoridation chemicals if they are added to the drinking water.

The first one (NSC59) dealt with whether or not councils had a legal right to add fluoridation chemicals to the drinking water. Chief Justice Sian Elias said they didn’t, but the other four judges thought they did. However, the important point for us is that all judges, except Judge William Young, ruled that fluoridation was a medical treatment, and that if a person lives or works in a fluoridated area it is compulsory medication and therefore it breached Section 11 of the Bill of Rights Act. Section 11 – “Everyone has the right to refuse to undergo medical treatment”.

So why does this not make fluoridation illegal? The judges then went on to look at Section 5 which is about “Justified limitations” and says “Subject to section 4, the rights and freedoms contained in this Bill of Rights may be subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.” Section 4 is about “Other Enactments” which says that other laws override the Bill of Rights. But two of the judges argued that fluoridation was justified under Section 5. They say they are not able to weigh up the benefits and risks, so they rely on the Ministry of Health and the World Health Organization, who say there are benefits and no risks. One judge ruled that this was a balancing that each decision maker had to make at the time, potentially taking local circumstances into account. But all three agreed the balancing question needed to be addressed.

So we are back to everyone, including the highest court of the land, allowing fluoridation because the Ministry of Health and the World Health Organization say it’s okay. This is in spite of the fact that most of the world does not practice fluoridation – even though the WHO says it is good – and the decision makers in the Ministry of Health are a handful of people who have been promoting fluoridation most of their professional careers, so are unlikely to change their mind.

Where does that leave us? The fact that the Supreme Court has ruled that fluoridation is compulsory medical treatment means the proponents can never again spin the PR line that they are “just topping up the natural levels”. Hallelujah! Thank you New Health New Zealand for initiating this great leap forward. It also leaves us where we were before, in that we need hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders to understand this issue – so the few policy advisors within the Ministry of Health can no longer wield such great power so irresponsibly.

See all FAN bulletins online

3. Press Release: Fluoride Free New Zealand

28 June

Fluoridation is mass medication, NZ Supreme Court rules

Water fluoridation is compulsory mass medication, in breach of human rights, the Supreme Court has ruled by a majority vote. It confirmed that fluoridation is a medical treatment as claimed by opponents for over 60 years. It is not a supplement “just topping up natural levels”, as claimed by the Ministry of Health.

The impracticality of avoiding fluoridated water makes it compulsory in practice, the majority also ruled.

Three judges held that there was conflicting scientific evidence, confirming that the science is NOT settled.

Chief Justice Sian Elias then held that fluoridation was not prescribed by law (i.e. is unlawful), applying section 6 of the Bill of Rights Act. That was the correct decision in Fluoride Free NZ’s view.

The rest of the majority held that it was prescribed by law, and it was then necessary to apply a balancing test to determine if the breach of the right – not to be subject to medical treatment without consent – was justified in the case of fluoridation.

Justice Glazebrook held that it was for a local authority to do this when making its decision, potentially taking into account specific local circumstances.

On the balance of information before the Court – the misinformation promulgated by promoters that water fluoridation measurably reduces tooth decay and presents no real health risk – two judges held that it was justifiable. This is despite the court reiterating that it is now accepted that benefit for fluoride is from topical application, not from ingestion.

The Court did not consider information published since the original High Court case, and the recent US Government multi-million-dollar study by Bashash et al, published in Environmental Health Perspectives, carried out by top scientists and researchers in top North American universities – had not yet been published. This study found that children exposed to fluoride at the same levels as New Zealanders had significantly reduced IQ, which could easily have shifted the Justices’ perception of safety.

Importantly, the Court held that this question of whether fluoridation is justifiable is to be determined on the balance of probabilities. There is no requirement for absolute proof of harm, as long-maintained by the Ministry of Health. As a question of fact, the two judges’ conclusion is not binding on any lower court or any statutory decision maker. With the overwhelming weight of scientific evidence that water fluoridation is ineffective and poses significant health risks, this opens the door to end the practice at any time.

The majority held that tooth decay was a condition in the community that a local council could address (through fluoridation) under section 23 of the Health Act. It necessarily follows that any aspect of health in the community, good or bad, must also fall under section 23. This includes the current IQ level of inhabitants. Therefore a local council is required to protect that condition under section 23. So if, on the balance of probabilities, water fluoridation reduces IQ significantly – and half a standard deviation (5 points on the scale used in recent studies) is significant – a council must not implement fluoridation, and in fact must cease it if it is currently in place. Arguably, this mandatory requirement would override any direction that a District Health Board might give a council under the proposed legislation currently before Parliament.

Now that the Supreme Court has ruled fluoridation is medical treatment without consent, and with the mounting evidence that it is ineffective and carries significant health risks, it is time for politicians and the health sector to rethink the practice. Its days are clearly numbered following this judgment.




June 29

The dentist who first pressed for fluoride to be added to a South Taranaki town’s water supply has welcomed a Supreme Court judgement that will finally allow it to go ahead after a legal battle that lasted nearly six years.

Sandie Pryor …first approached South Taranaki District Council about adding fluoride to Pātea’s water in 2009.

This legal battle was finally settled on Wednesday when the Supreme Court ruled that although fluoride did amount to a medical treatment, the council was justified in introducing it to the water supply and that was not constrained by section 11 of the Bill of Rights Act.

…South Taranaki District Council, which has for decades added fluoride to the water in Hāwera, Normanby, Okaiawa and Ohawe, has yet to announce when it will introduce it to Pātea and Waverley.



NZ Video presentation

1hour 6 min from Paul Connett New Zealand presentation

 You tube video of presentation

Paul Connett, Executive Director of the Fluoride Action Network, gives a detailed presentation on the potential harmful effects of water fluoridation on residents of New Zealand.

Report from FFNZ: Earlier this year, the Fluoride Action Network’s (FAN) Director, chemist and Professor Emeritus Paul Connett, PhD, travelled to New Zealand to combat a proposal in the Parliament that could create a de-facto nationwide fluoridation mandate.  The proposal under consideration would strip local governments and residents of the authority to make decisions regarding fluoridation of their drinking water.  Instead, local Boards of Health would be granted the ability to force communities to fluoridate, regardless of resident opposition.

Dr. Connett made presentations before many communities on his trip, with his last being a presentation given in the NZ parliamentary building.  He detailed the potential harmful effects of water fluoridation, including the most recent research and scientific findings.

Now you can watch and share this presentation, entitled Major U.S. Government-Funded Brain Study Should End Fluoridation Worldwide, which includes power-point slides and graphics throughout the video.  This valuable tool was filmed and edited by FAN’s Outreach and Education Director, Jay Sanders, who did an impressive job capturing Paul’s message to decision-makers everywhere:

(Click on graphic to watch video)




Extra Resource Item

Case Study Published in NZ Medical Journal 4th May 2018
Dr Michael Godfrey, Tauranga

A personal note:

 I have just today ( July 9th) discussed with a senior doctor his strong recommendation for me to reintroduce the long-term consumption of one medicine, to reduce the chance of  its potentially fatal  recurrence. Completing the editing of  this 11.000-word  web update has produced a single green word, near the end of in the first paragraph of this discussion. This is a  decision for me. I will not give in to it and later, tell you the result if , maybe,  I live long  enough.

Ivor H

A Case of Skeletal Fluorosis? How many of us are at risk? How much arthritis in New Zealand is really skeletal fluorosis? Dr Mike Godfrey from Tauranga has had this case study published in the New Zealand Medical Journal. Doctors all over the country should be measuring the fluoride levels of all their arthritic patients.

79-year-old lady presented with a history of diffuse sero-negative arthritis dating from early adulthood. Numerous investigations and therapies had failed to provide any significant benefit and both knees and a hip had been replaced when initially seen a year ago. On questioning at that time, she admitted to daily drinking at least six cups of black tea since childhood. She lives in a retirement village where there has not been water fluoridation since 1994. However, her fasting fluoride results (Med-lab) were elevated:

  • Serum fluoride 2.5µmol/L (Ref. range 0–3-2.2)
  • Urine fluoride 58µmol (Ref. range 0–31)
  • Fluoride: creatinine ratio 13.5µmol (Ref. range 0–3.1)

She used a standard fluoridated toothpaste but was otherwise not on any fluoridated medications. However, given the fact that her preferred tea exceeded 3mg fluoride/L(1) it is possible that she has been unwittingly overdosing for many years. Skeletal fluorosis from tea has been identified (2). Furthermore, excessive use of fluoridated toothpaste caused severe arthritis initially diagnosed as ankylosing spondylitis with full recovery after stopping exposure(3). A year after stopping black tea drinking and changing to a herbal non-fluoridated tooth-paste, this elderly woman’s joint pain levels had markedly decreased with considerably improved mobility enabling her to have a long-awaited trip overseas.

Fluoride exposures are pervasive. Traditionally, this country has been a major tea consumer and the consequences of fluoride in tea have recently been extensively covered with one cup of the most widely consumed tea brands supplying over 1mg of fluoride per teabag even without any added water fluoridation(1). Absorption of fluoride from toothpaste at 1,000ppm are considerable and equivalent to, or more than from a cup of tea.(1,4) Fluoride is present in beverages, and in over 200 pharmaceuticals with some being given on a long-term daily basis, e.g. atorvastatin, fluvastatin, fluticasone, celecoxib and fluoxetine.

Long-term accumulative exposures to fluoride even at low levels carries a risk of sub-clinical or stage-1 musculo-skeletal fluorosis presenting as joint pain or arthritis.(5) Notably, arthritis is a leading cause of disability with 647,000 now affected in this country and annual costs exceeding $3 billion.(6) Chronic pain was also reported in a New Zealand community study with the most common pain locations being lower back (59%), pelvis/abdomen (49%), joints (39%), neck (34%), muscle (31%) and headache (31%).(7) It would thus be logical to include possible fluorosis in the differential diagnosis of these patients with at least urine fluoride assessments. Notably, this woman’s serum fluoride level was considerably higher than that of women in her age group living in a low fluoride area, with a mean serum level of 0.56µmol/l and 0.948µmol/l being the highest recorded with impaired renal function.(8)

Prescriptions for arthritis are among the highest on Pharmac lists with similar health problems being recorded in the Republic of Ireland, the heaviest tea-drinking nation and with long-term nationwide fluoridation. Notably, excessive tea consumption can cause skeletal fluorosis(2) as can toothpaste.(3) The accumulating evidence could suggest that the population is potentially being over-dosed with fluoride and certainly exposed to far more than the initial well-intentioned dental hypothesis of 1mg/day for caries prevention proposed in the US 70 years ago.

The findings in this case would indicate that further primary health investigations are warranted and for those interested, Dr Susheela, a leading fluoride researcher, gives a useful diagnostic protocol.(9) Notably, the evidence presented here is but a fraction of the available peer-reviewed literature, demonstrating the potential for harm from this element as reviewed by Peckham and Awofeso.(10)


1. Waugh DT, Godfrey M, Limeback H, Potter W. Black Tea Source, Production, and Consumption: Assessment of Health Risks of Fluoride Intake in New Zealand. J Environ Public Health (2017) 5120504. doi: 10.1155/2017/5120504. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih. gov/pubmed/28713433
2. Kakumanu N, Sudhaker D, Rao SD. Skeletal Fluorosis Due to Excessive Tea Drinking. N Engl J Med 2013; 368:1140 DOI: 10.1056/NEJMicm1200995.
3. Kurland ES, Schulman RC, Zerwekhm JE, Reinus WR, et al. Recovery from skeletal fluorosis (an enigmatic, American case). J Bone Miner Res. 2007 Jan; 22(1):163–70.
4. Ekstrand J, Koch G, Petersson LG. Plasma fluoride concentrations in pre-school children after ingestion of fluoride tablets and toothpaste. Caries Research. 1983; 17(4):379– 384. doi: 10.1159/0002606 91. [PubMed] [Cross Ref. Introductory comment relates
5. Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA’s Standards Chapter 5 Musculoskeletal Effects. ISBN 978-0-309-10128-8 | DOI 10.17226/11571
6. www.arthritis.org.nz (accessed January 2018).
7. Swain N, Johnson M. Chronic pain in New Zealand: a community sample. The New Zealand Medical Journal. 2014; 127(1388):21–30.
8. Itai K, Onoda T, Nohara M, Ohsawa M, et al. Serum ionic fluoride concentrations are related to renal function and menopause status but not to age in a Japanese general population. Clinica Chimica Acta 411 2010; 263–266.
9. Susheela AK. Fluorosis and Associated Health Issues Indian Journal of Practical Pediatrics 2015; 17(2):138. 10. Peckham S, Awafeso N. Water fluoridation: A critical review of the phys- iological effects of ingested fluoride as a public health intervention. The Scien- tific World Journal (2014) Volume 2014, Article ID 293019, 10 pp. http://dx.doi. org/10.1155/2014/293019



Additional NZ News



8th May

FAN Report

A Mosgiel group has formed to fight to get fluoride out of the Dunedin water supply until the chemical is proved safe.   Group co-ordinator Dennis Enright, of Mosgiel, said nearly 50 people attended a public meeting about fluoride in the Downes Room last week.

From the meeting, a working group was formed to lobby the Dunedin City Council to suspend fluoridating the water supply until it could be proven safe.

“We are concerned by a lack of evidence.”  “They are mass-medicating us for the benefit of a small portion of the population who don’t brush their teeth,” he said.

A community meeting in Mosgiel about eight years ago stopped the council introducing fluoride to the town’s bore water supply, Mr Enright said.  However, when Mosgiel was switched to town water supply from the Mount Grand treatment plant last year, residents were exposed to fluoride….

*Original article online at https://www.odt.co.nz/news/dunedin/mosgiel-lobby-group-fighting-fluoride



June 22

An interesting letter replied by  tackling common misuse of statistics

 Darrell Grace (Letters; June 14) claims that water fluoridation has benefits. Mary Byrne (Letters; June 17) makes clear how Darrell Grace is wrong with his claims about tooth decay statistics.

Examples from the 2015-16 NZ Dental School Statistics include children from non-fluoridated Christchurch and Nelson-Marlborough with less tooth decay than those from fluoridated Auckland and Counties Manukau; and non-fluoridated New Plymouth had less tooth decay than fluoridated Hawera.

Even the World Health Organisation statistics demonstrate there is no discernible difference in tooth decay between developed countries that fluoridate their water and those that do not, with a general trend of decline in overall rates of decay in developed countries.

The studies Mr Grace alludes to are not the ones that point out that hydrofluorosilicic acid (HFA) is toxic [NZ Hazchem Class 6 (acutely toxic ) 7 (dangerous poison) & 8 (corrosive)]. HFA is also laced with a range of other heavy metals including aluminium, arsenic, lead, mercury and uranium, and fluoride is classed as more toxic than lead….



June 26,

Final message from FAN; new NZ / Australian video

According to Paul, “Jay filmed this in a professional studio and with his excellent formatting and editing skills, I think this is one of my best presentations on video. It is right up to date and for someone new to the issue it is very clear and well documented. The first 40 minutes deal with fluoride’s neurotoxicity and after a short intermission the rest deals with the more familiar common sense and ethical arguments against fluoridation.

Please share this video with decision-makers, have it shown on local public TV channels, share it on your social media pages, hold a neighborhood House Party, BBQ, or Coffee Social with a screening of this video.

Stay tuned! Jay will be creating shorter videos using footage from this presentation that we will share in future bulletins and on our social media pages.

Latest Fluoride News: